masseffectfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Eden Prime war
Delete Proposal So yeah I can see no point to this article as this is a basic plot summary of ME, which is already covered in a more appropiate place, Storyline. Also this article can cause a massive ammount of canon conflicts, and even if those were to be avoided, this article contains mostly redundant information. So Delete. Lancer1289 16:05, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :Word. (Translation: I agree 100%) --Effectofthemassvariety 16:09, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Well sure - if you just wanna run this like any other gaming Wikia, it makes sense to truncate everything - but Mass Effect is a wider franchise, involving comics, novels, etc. In other Wikis about franchises, e.g. Star Wars, conflicts get their own page, since they are referenced by more than one source, and need to be easily searchable. Also - what canon conflicts, exactly? There is no need to mention variable events like the fate of the council. I know you will probably disagree - but that is sad, considering everything I just said makes sense - this isn't just another gaming Wikia, but has a larger purview. Shell Kracker 16:20, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Here are a couple of examples: Galactic Civil War Federation-Klingon War. Mass Effect deserves a slightly more comprehensive Wiki, considering events like this war have been mentioned seperately in games/comics/novels. :::(edit conflict)And why would we want to be like any other wiki? Each wiki is free to set their own policies and do what they wish, at the staff's purview, but that's another issue. Every wiki has different policies and articles that have completely redundant information that is already covered in more appropriate places, don't get an article for themselves. We aren't Wookieepedia, we are the Mass Effect Wiki so don't go applying policies from other wikis here as that doesn't work. Each wiki is free to do what they wish, and frankly pages like this, that cover redundant information, aren't usually around very long. :::As to the canon conflicts, you can't avoid them if the article survives and is done properly, which has to cover the ending. And again those are already covered in more appropriate places. But again we aren't Wookieepedia and their policies have absolutely no bearing here. We have our own policies and our own way of doing things. Lancer1289 16:27, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::What if those policies arn't as comprehensive? It is good to learn from other examples. The point of making independent articles for major conflicts, is so that they are easily distinguished and searchable - anyone looking for information on this conflict, can now type it's name into Google or Wikia's search engine - and be taken to this summary. That is why I posted an example from another Wiki - because its insane to simply truncate all information into a storyline article - why not just write a Wiki that is one-page in size, by that logic? I have rarely seen anyone actually change their mind during one of these discussions, so I dunno why I am typing this. Shell Kracker 17:07, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::As Dammej pointed out, this does not make sense - Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic has multiple endings - all that happens in such cases, is the endings are left ambigous, or the alternatves are both presented - this isn't a problem new to Wikis - it has already been solved. All we need do, is either omit the fate of the Council (what I would do), or write "SPOILER TAG - depending on your choices, the Council may either die or be saved - END SPOILER TAG". This is a poor reason to delete an article about a major war, don't you think? Also, while we are here, what, exactly, did you find objectionable about the 'Conflicts of the Systems Alliance' box, that warranted it's removal from several articles? It was perfectly dated, and completely canonical. Shell Kracker 17:13, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::(edit conflict)Because they have policies that work for them, which don't work elsewhere. Every wiki is free to do with what they wish with their policies, and applying policies from other wikis means nothing here as we have no obligation to follow what other wikis do. Our policies many not work on Wookieepedia, but they do here. And their policies many not work here, but they work there. We are under no obligation to follow other wikis in what they do because we are independent, to a point, but that's a different matter. :::::However this article is about what happens in the Eden Prime war, and while yes it has multiple endings, we already over that information elsewhere. As such this is redundant information. Also we already have enough problems with canon on this site, and this will just add to them because now we have to repeat what is already covered elsewhere, and then it will be modified because people did one ending. This is more of an annoyance than anything, but I thought i had to be said. They also have to say everything so omitting something is out of the question. We have spoiler tags and that is what would be used, but since this has to be written from the perspective of someone who hasn't played ME2 yet, it would have to be modified to omit Nazara and a few other things. Again this would be redundant information. :::::Also let's not put comments in the middle of other people's as you just did. It's not only very rude, but it can also be considered vandalism, which is a bannable offense. :::::As to the template I explained why on your talk page why it is nominated for deletion. Site policy calls for tempaltes to be discussed first, then implemented. No discussion, no template as it is a violation of site policy. Your edits therefore were unwarranted because you violated site policy. Lancer1289 17:23, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :(edit conflict)Like you said, we aren't just like other wikis. We have our own way of doing things. Redundant articles make for a clumsy site. Easier to have the info all in one place, rather than in two places. Also, I was thinking that we might want to change this article into a redirect to the Storyline page? --Effectofthemassvariety 16:32, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Hmm that might not be a bad idea, however the article would have to be Eden Prime War, mainly to match what is in the games first. However I say let's just keep with the delete propsal and then if it is deleted a new redirect will be created because of the above issue. Frankly a move right now would be redundent and we'll just have to wait and see what happens. While I'll probably get some flak for that, it's probably better to wait and see. Lancer1289 16:35, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :I understand. Ugh! It's one of my pet peeves that people create article titles that aren't properly capitalized! So, yeah. Eden Prime 'W'ar should be the title of the redirect/article. --Effectofthemassvariety 16:39, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::If the article survies, then it will be moved. If it doesn't, then it will be deleted and then a new redirect will be created. That sounds like a plan. Lancer1289 16:44, October 24, 2010 (UTC) I'm for keeping it. The Eden Prime War is a pretty major conflict deserving of an article separate from the storyline page, the article itself is very well-made (with a couple of minor issues with grammar and redlinks), and I don't see what Lancer is talking about with 'canon conflicts'. It's already stated how the war "ends" at the citadel, and it's stated in a way that doesn't pick one version of the events of Mass Effect over the other. Obviously a move to the properly capitalized title would be needed, but I think it's a good article. -- Dammej (talk) 16:55, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :Thanks Dammej. Shell Kracker 16:59, October 24, 2010 (UTC) Disregard the part about the template - I have seen your PM. I guess procedure is more important than common sense - better to delete a good template because the author didn't know the rules, than to keep it on merit. Do what you wish with the article - I think that it should exist for the exact same reason that articles like Helium-3 exist - but I don't have the time to sit here defending it. If you find a high turnover of editors, you will know why. Shell Kracker 17:27, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :I respectfully disagree. Having the info in one place is the ideal, for me at least. The Eden Prime War is the storyline of Mass Effect. We don't need to describe the same thing in two places. Shell Kracker, you suggest we create this article and omit the variables, but those are a major part of the conflict. Whether the council dies, or whether Commander Shepard sacrifices the Alliance Fleet's safety is important to the conflict, and is needed. We need to keep it in the Storyline page. --Effectofthemassvariety 17:38, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :Also, like I was saying before, I feel that redirects are here for a reason: So we don't need to create multiple articles about the same thing. I think we need only put a redirect, and it will be fine. --Effectofthemassvariety 17:41, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::Good thinking. However, I'm in favor of deleting this particular article with its capitalization error. We can create a redirect entitled "Eden Prime War" (which would link to wherever we have the events of ME explained the most thoroughly) afterward. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:00, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :Yeah, like we were saying up above, the 'w' in war needs to be capitalized, no matter what happens. --Effectofthemassvariety 18:29, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::100% in favor of deletion. Contrary to what others have said (no offense, Dammej, but gotta call this one like I see it), the Eden Prime War is not a major conflict deserving of its own page. It's a minor war consisting on some small-scale skirmishes involving two parties, culminating in one large battle. That's it. Most of the combat was (thanks to the fact that, as Effect pointed out, the Eden Prime conflict is essentially the plot of the game) squad-based and squad-sized on one or both sides. There were only three engagements we know of that went beyond squad-level combat, and two of those were still pretty small (speaking from a strictly military perspective here - the forces involved on Eden Prime and at Virmire weren't squat militarily speaking). Redirect to the storyline? (Once the caps issue has been fixed, of course) Sure, I'd be down for that. Its own article? Not a chance in Netu. (Stargate SG-1 fans will know what that means! And the wording should give it away to you non SG-1 fans.) As for us seeing "high turnover of editors", we haven't seen it yet, nor do I expect we will anytime soon, unless people really hate the new skin. People keep coming back. Even the ones who say they're done. And as for the charming "I guess procedure is more important than common sense - better to delete a good template because the author didn't know the rules, than to keep it on merit." comment: way to go! That'll win over the skeptics! Maybe the problem was with the template? I mean, I'd at least consider it before launching an attack on others for their lack of common sense. SpartHawg948 19:43, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :::I of course take no offense. If I took offense every time someone disagreed with me on this site, I would be a masochist to continue contributing here. :P I obviously disagree with your assessment that EPW was not a major conflict. It's so major that the main plot of Mass Effect deals with it! I won't disagree that, from a military strength and involvement standpoint it might be considered minor: you are far more qualified than I to make that judgment. I'm just arguing that the conflict is important to the story of Mass Effect as a whole. If most feel that we'd be better served by creating a redirect to the Storyline page, so be it. But I still think that readers would be better served by having a page here that talks about the conflict specifically, perhaps with some See Also links leading to the storyline page. -- Dammej (talk) 22:18, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::But saying "it's a major conflict because it was the main plot of Mass Effect" is, and again no offense is intended, utter nonsense! If that is the parameter for determining what is a major conflict, then Jacob's scuffle with batarian terrorists was also a major conflict. After all, it's so major that the main (and only) plot of Mass Effect Galaxy deals with it. SpartHawg948 23:20, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::Point taken. I haven't played MEG, so I'm lacking some information: Is his minor scuffle also called a 'war' in the Mass Effect universe, where the final battle in said war takes place at the hub for all species, and the aftermath of which is still being dealt with two years later? Sorry if that seems a little snarky, but the comparison seems a bit silly to me. Then again, I wouldn't consider MEG on the same level as Mass Effect as far as importance. That's all subjective though, so it's probably best not to debate about that. :::::Obviously the fact that the EPW was the main plot of the game Mass Effect is not a satisfactory criteria for being considered a major conflict in and of itself, but I think it certainly is a supporting factor, in light of the fact that the conflict is named within the universe, and continues to have ramifications that are felt by all species (not the least of which involves the installation of humans into the Council, either alone or in concert with the other 3 species). -- Dammej (talk) 23:49, October 24, 2010 (UTC) ::::::Yes to most of that, actually. It's not called a war, though the final battle most certainly does take place on "the hub for all species", and as the batarians are still an issue for the galaxy at large, and are arguably more so due to the events of MEG, yes, the aftermath is still being dealt with two years later. And, as the ultimate goal of the batarian baddies in MEG was, as it just so happens, assassinating the entire Citadel Council it would seem to have some similar ramifications, certainly when you also consider that the Council themselves consider the batarians more of a threat than the Reapers (seeing as, unlike the Reapers, the Council does acknowledge the existence of the batarians). And remember, my argument was solely that using plot significance to determine in-universe significance is foolhardy. SpartHawg948 23:56, October 24, 2010 (UTC) :::::Consider my foot inserted firmly into my mouth. I suppose I should look something like this up when I attempt to make an argument, eh? Kind of unsettling that the player never really hears about that in ME2. Oh well. My arguments seem to hold little water, but I will not be dissuaded from my line of thinking. Perhaps it's time to agree to disagree. :) -- Dammej (talk) 00:02, October 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::Sounds like a plan! Though your previous post did touch a little bit on a concern I have with a related topic, namely this "Wars fought by the Systems Alliance" template where half the "wars" listed are actually single battles fought against pirates and slavers. But that's another issue for another page... :) SpartHawg948 00:04, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :::::Couple of points to consider: :::::1). There is strong supporting evidence in minor dialogue, that the Eden Prime War was larger in scope than Shepard's actions onboard the SSV Normandy - I haven't played Mass Effect 2 for a few weeks, or read the books for a while, but it seems to have involved a wider effort on the part of the Systems Alliance military to dislodge the Geth Heretic forces. :::::2). The 'Skyllian Blitz', 'Assult on Torfan' and this war, were no less severe than say, the attack on Granada by the USA, or the Falklands War by the UK. We have the Systems Alliance engaging a foreign government in open conflict! Note that the template says 'Conflicts', not 'Wars'. On Wikipedia, if these wars had occured in real life, they would have warranted their own articles. :::::I vote to keep the article, with capitalisation of 'W'. 09:39, October 25, 2010 (UTC) ::::::As to point 2... sorry, but that is incorrect. The Alliance did not fight a foreign government in open conflict in either the Skyllian Blitz or the Assault on Torfan. In both instances, the Alliance fought bands of pirates and slavers, not the armed forces (or even irregular forces) of the batarian or any other government. And the comparison to the Falklands war just does not fly. The Falklands War was an actual war, in which one nation (Argentina) invaded the territory of another (the U.K.), resulting in a protracted war with several stages and multiple battles. Nothing like either the Skyllian Blitz or the Assault on Torfan, both of which were individual battles against pirates and slavers. Nor is the liberation of Granada a valid comparison, as it was a multi-national effort to oust a violent revolutionary force that had overthrown a legitimate government in a bloody coup. The Skyllian Blitz and Seige of Torfan (IIRC, that's what it's called in-game) are more akin to engagements between U.S. forces and Somali pirates, or to the anti-piracy efforts of the Royal Navy in the Caribbean and along the Atlantic Coast of North America during the 17th and 18th centuries. SpartHawg948 09:51, October 25, 2010 (UTC) :::::Yeah I'm also going to call foul on that as well. Both were single battles and not wars as the template says. When I initally proposed this yesterday, I never thought I'd see something like this, but I think we've come up with even more reasons to delete the page now. Not unheard of, but there are even more reasons to delete the template here as well. Lancer1289 13:01, October 25, 2010 (UTC) Well the time has passed and with a vote of 4-2, the page will be deleted and a proper redirect will be created which redirects to the Storyline. Lancer1289 03:34, November 3, 2010 (UTC) Goodness, I didn't even know the page existed (so I haven't seen the original). But out of curiosity, what would be sound criteria for including a "war" page? Such as the First Contact War, and the Krogan Rebellions (both of which are ancillary to the main plot of the ME universe). I'm guessing that there is more (official) information on these than there is on the EPW? -- AnotherRho 03:46, November 3, 2010 (UTC)